More Global Cooling Evidence Embarrasses the IPCC Orthodoxy

Posted on 25th March 2008 by Ryan Somma in Enlightenment Warrior - Tags: , ,

A recent article that appeared in The Australian, Climate facts to warm to, has the transcript of an important interview with Dr. Jennifer Marohasy a biologist, free market advocate, and Global Warming skeptic.

When asked “Is the Earth still warming?” Dr. Marohasy replied:

No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.

Surprising right? Why haven’t all those Global Warming Climatologists been talking about this? Especially, as Dr. Marohasy points out, they don’t deny it:

The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued…

We can clearly see this plateau here:

Global Cooling Trend

Global Cooling Trend

Global Cooling Trend Close Up

Global Cooling Trend
Close-Up

In case you can’t see it, here’s a zoom in of the last ten years to the right. You can see the obvious cooling trend. Notice the way the red median line looks like it sorta wants to curve just a little bit there? If you use your imagination, you can clearly visualize this red line actually pointing in the opposite direction.

Go ahead. Just imagine that. Imagine this picture upside down. That’s what Dr. Marohasy is talking about. Why are Climatologists at the IPCC ignoring this important fact being imagined in the brains of climate skeptics? Why? Why is the IPCC and MSM refusing to cover this important visualization research?

And what about the NASA Aqua satellite, which has been collecting data since 2002 on Earth’s atmospheric temperatures, water cycles, and sea-ice levels? Dr. Marohasy brings up the satellite’s research several times, but NASA only publishes the data that supports their preconceived notions of global warming, like melting Arctic Ice and global temperatures. There’s a lot of data supporting this cooling trend that Dr. Marohasy has so much faith-based evidence for, and the fact that NASA doesn’t have it on their website, just further proves how real it is. NASA is trying our faith.

And what about the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri’s blatant acknowledgement about the recent temperature stall? Here’s some damning highlights from the article:

Last year was among the six warmest years since records began in the 1850s and the British Met Office said last week that 2008 will be the coolest year since 2000, partly because of a La Nina event that cuts water temperatures in the Pacific.

“We are in a minor La Nina period which shows a little cooling in the Pacific Ocean,” Delju told Reuters. “The decade from 1998 to 2007 is the warmest on record and the whole trend is still continuing.”

The record year for world temperatures was 1998, ahead of 2005, according to WMO data. Among recent signs of the effects of warming, Arctic sea ice shrank last year to a record low. (emphasis mine)

2008 will be the coolest year since 2000,” got that? Let me italicize, underline, and follow it with some exclamation marks just in case you missed it: “2008 will be the coolest year since 2000!!!

God Bless the FreeRepublic for notifying their fanatically conservative base of this important development, who then flooded the blogosphere with this news the MSM was so blatantly ignoring, even getting the story on the front page of Digg by fanatically clicking on that “Digg It” button over and over and over again. Thanks to their activism, all those thoughtless sheep who believe the empirical evidence of Global Warming might get a clue.

I also appreciated the way these same activists got an offensive political cartoon posted to Digg under “General Sciences:”

Science is way too liberal in the way it doesn’t push conservative talking points. This cartoon will go a long way towards demonstrating what conservatives can contribute to collegiate scientific discourse.

Also featured on the radio show hosting Dr. Marohasy, was someone arguing that low fat diets cause diabetes and heart disease. I always knew all those servings of fruit and vegetables was just a liberal ploy to effeminate American men.

123 Comments

  1. hahahaha — awesome

    Comment by Clint — March 25, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

  2. […] Yesterday I posted this image of what climatologists are claiming is evidence of warming in the last decade, and explained how it actually shows a cooling trend; however, it has come to my attention that the methodology I used, while completely legitimate in a completely fallacious sense, did violate the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor, which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely. […]

    Pingback by Clarifying the Science Behind Global Cooling « ideonexus — March 26, 2008 @ 11:04 am

  3. Here’s a bit more reliable reconstruction of global temperature:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    Nasa is not the only institution trying to figure out what’s happening.

    Comment by Dodo — March 26, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

  4. Thanks Dodo, I’ll see what I can do in photoshop to make these graphs look like a global cooling trend. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — March 26, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

  5. […] This is a bit awkward, seeing as how I recently knocked on the ABC for hosting science quacks. […]

    Pingback by Quoted in ABC Science « ideonexus — March 27, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

  6. Occam’s razor works only in a lack of empirical evidence as a deductive tool, it has nothing to do with statistical analysis.

    Comment by gorak — March 27, 2008 @ 11:02 pm

  7. say what you want, but if the reports coming out now are true……that red line you are laughing about will most certainly turn down when 2008 is added and 2003 is dropped out. if that is a 5 year average line, it is about to turn down….

    depending on how this goes, your satire will begin to be accidental self-satire.

    Comment by mark — April 3, 2008 @ 11:10 am

  8. If the scientific evidence does a complete 180 and the world starts cooling. I’ll freely and happily admit I’m wrong. I have no hesitation to eating crow, I do it all the time.

    If the world keep warming, you dittoheads will continue to call black white and up down. That’s the difference between us.

    Comment by ideonexus — April 3, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

  9. actually, i think the trend is overall upwards and even if it makes a downturn, it will probably head back up. the question is one of causation. i question the connection with greenhouses gases………they are probably partly responsible, but i suspect other factors are far more responsible. if the world does have a response to warming and begins to cool…..i seriously doubt you will hear much from the “dittoheads” on the left. you may be a refreshing exception but both extreme wings have their quacks.

    by the way……the scientific “evidence” does not have to do a complete 180 for the temperatures to go down…….especially since we are only getting selective evidence in the media. anything that doesn’t fit the hysteria is thrown out as something to not report on.

    Comment by mark — April 4, 2008 @ 9:23 am

  10. The statistics in http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif already show a downward trend, and they don’t appear to be including 2006 to 2008 (the coolest year since 2000).

    1998 certainly spiked.

    Comment by Dan — April 13, 2008 @ 1:59 am

  11. this may get quite amusing here…..a few more months of this and global warming will be nil….of course i really do expect an upturn soon, but it goes to show how little we can affect things.

    Comment by mark — April 17, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

  12. Sorry mark. The trend is still above average. No warming is being erased here. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — April 22, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

  13. that’s a misleading post idonexus….the more precise truth is that this year is quite cool compared to many recent years, so that those who are dedicated to GW are finding new ways to say what they mean. i would say the verdict is still out….but let’s just see what happens.

    HadCRUT has this as the updated graph through march of 2008:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

    that is GLOBAL. doesn’t look too scary to me…..but i am very open to being wrong…

    Comment by mark — April 24, 2008 @ 3:33 am

  14. in fact, if you check out the graph carefully, we have not had this sharp of a downturn in the moving average since about 1960. that is NOT to say that things are as cool as 1960, but it is to say that things appear to be cooling at the same acceleration as then.

    Comment by mark — April 24, 2008 @ 3:35 am

  15. check out this graph:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

    you will see what i mean and you will actually find that things don’t look too scary. if things continue the way they have been going the past 14 months, then this will not take long to get quite cool indeed.

    Comment by mark — April 24, 2008 @ 3:36 am

  16. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

    Comment by mark — April 24, 2008 @ 3:36 am

  17. ok, so a little research shows that HADCRUT has this March as perhaps the 10th warmest march ever (hard to see that fine):

    March temperatures

    however, if you look at the global temperatures based on HADCRUT, you have an even less spectacular story:

    Annual Temperature Graph from HADCRUT

    what are we to make of this? not sure…..anyone have any feedback, because i am still on my learning curve….

    it is also worth noting that according to the link posted, if you go to the actual graphs, this march is virtually a statistical tie with 1990 (or is that 1991?). still, the overall trend is upward, but seems less significant than it is being made out to be:

    statistical tie with 1990?

    for some reason it this blog is not letting me post links….can someone show me how?

    Comment by mark — April 24, 2008 @ 3:39 am

  18. Mark,

    My apologies. My comments filter flagged your posts as spam. As soon as I saw this had happened, I un-spammed them.

    I do greatly appreciate your skepticism, and the fact that you are honestly trying to understand the data. My blog isn’t the best place for understanding the science behind Climate Change research (unless you find satire educational), but you’re looking in the right place with hadcrut.

    All I can say is to keep watching the trend. If you feel the recent downturn will turn into a trend, then keep monitoring it. If the trend keeps climbing, then please help us move this debate to the next stage, where we try to figure out what to do about it. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — April 29, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

  19. i posted again with a link to an article in Nature journal of science predicting a minimum of 7 more years of cooling…..before it starts warming up again. this is getting very very silly…..

    Comment by mark — April 30, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

  20. Sorry. I didn’t get that post in my spam queue or in my moderated comments, but I do know the article you are referring to. The article is referring to one computer model that predicts a decade without increased warming, not cooling. I’m very skeptical as this is one computer model out of hundreds, and it’s the only one to make such a prediction. I’ll wait to hear the responses.

    Comment by ideonexus — May 1, 2008 @ 11:04 pm

  21. well, you should now see that tons of articles are coming out questioning warming due to recent news on the Jason Satellite and other indicators that are causing doubt….. check this out:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

    Comment by mark — May 2, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

  22. and this:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871

    Comment by mark — May 2, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

  23. Hmmm… Canada Free Press and The Register… Got any real news sources?

    Comment by ideonexus — May 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

  24. or this:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL3084412620080430

    Comment by mark — May 3, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

  25. Funny thing, I made a post just presenting some scientific stuff, nothing rude, and it evaporated!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 5, 2008 @ 4:43 am

  26. Black Wallaby,

    I’m unaware of any such post. I’m pretty meticulous about un-spamming the comments wordpress flags. You’ve had enough posts allowed here that you should know I don’t censor anyone. I’ll approve any comment that isn’t selling porn. I even let you have the last word on the last thread we were debating on.

    If a post of yours evaporated, then repost it. This blog isn’t afraid of contrary opinions.

    Mark,

    I’m not sure what the point of that story is in relation to your position. If you read the posts on this blog, you’ll realize I am well aware of the complexities and competing theories in climate science. None of the peer-reviewed articles dispute global warming though, despite offering differing perspectives on its scope and effects. Thank you for referencing a legitimate source though.

    Comment by ideonexus — May 5, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

  27. it just seems like policy is based upon the most extreme interpretation of the data rather than on what is actually happening….which is that we are warming slowly, but not for the past 10 years.

    Comment by mark — May 5, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

  28. Well the fact is that I have over the past couple of days tried to post something twice with about four links in it an it failed. I also tried about ten hours ago a post with only one link in it and it failed. Yet, my two-liner above got through OK. Could I Email them to you?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 6, 2008 @ 6:12 am

  29. Oh, OK that got through OK, and I agree that you have been very fair in not blocking my stuff in the past. I would like to send you some scientific stuff. Nothing rude….Honest….any comments

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 6, 2008 @ 6:15 am

  30. Black Wallaby — too many links makes a post look “spammy”… I’ve seen it happen on my blog. Instead of just pasting a link, do the actual <a href=”link”>description</a> — I think that extra touch “humanizes” things and makes you less likely to be flagged as spam.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 6, 2008 @ 9:25 am

  31. by the way…the new data is out for the ssmi global temperature monitors and this april was the coolest since 1997. it was cooler than 1987…..i guess we can wait to see what the other indices say, but they haven’t yet updated:
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt

    Comment by mark — May 6, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

  32. Black Wallaby,

    Even with too many links, I should be getting your posts in my spam queue for approval. This is weird, because I’m not getting any spam whatsoever in my spam queue.

    Something’s broken. Lemme do some tests. My apologies.

    ry

    Comment by ideonexus — May 6, 2008 @ 9:02 pm

  33. This is a test:

    free viagra

    sexy nude goth babes

    earn money at home

    free money

    check your credit score

    bigger penis

    Comment by bob boberton — May 6, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

  34. Dang it! My apologies. I had my spam settings wrong. Akismet was set to automatically delete comments flagged as spam on posts that were older than a month. It took me an hour of downloading PHP files and help topics to figure out that I was supposed to just uncheck a stupid check box.

    Comments will still get flagged as spam, but they won’t be automatically vaporized anymore. I’ll approve them when I get home from work at night. Please allow up to 24 hours for comment approval.

    Again, my fault. Sorry. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — May 6, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

  35. oops….and now nasa (?) weighs in:

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    once again….the coolest april since 1997. this isn’t looking good for global warming alarmists.

    Comment by mark — May 7, 2008 @ 12:06 am

  36. What part of 10 years versus 10 million years do you people not understand?

    I bet if I beat the shit out of you for 10 years, and then spent 10 seconds kissing your boo-boos, you’d be arguing that I’m a nice person who’s helping you.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 7, 2008 @ 12:40 am

  37. Clint,Ryan,

    Thanks for the advice, here is a quickie with only one link.
    It is concerning a proposed low signal 60-year cycle in climate made back in 2003. The past decade appears to march remarkably well>

    See graph

    description

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 7, 2008 @ 12:43 am

  38. I just tried posting a graph direct, but may have not understood Clint’s html language.

    Here is the first post that I tried:
    ““““““““““““““““““““““
    Over at Gristmill, there is a real live Climate Scientist who has raised a blog on this @:
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/95549/87820

    Dr. Andrew Dessler wrote in part, asking; *Has Global Warming Stopped?*:

    “…There has been a lot of nonsense written about the lack of much if any warming over the last few years… …but like an axe-wielding psycho from a cheap horror flick, it just keeps coming back. At times like this, *it is always useful to look at the data* …” (emphasis added)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    1) Although some may suggest that GISS data, may be a bit sus’ (more on that later), the following is a convenient source of data over the past decade:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

    It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for the decade. Without any need to treat it statistically, any neutral person would conclude that this short data span is virtually flat. (A plateau at an average anomaly of ~0.6 C) However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would *prefer* to see. (more on this later)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    2) Now let’s look at a different Hadley graph @
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png
    This is an annual bar-chart with the Hadley arbitrary 20-year filtering, (also known as smoothing or trending), given with the blue line which they suggest is the average result of the vertical bars. Unfortunately, there is a computer coding problem with the last ten years of data, (more on that later), but there are some features in this graph, which Dr. Dessler does not indicate

    The following link shows a marked-up version of the Hadley graph discussed above

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa_o.png

    You may be rather surprised at some of the things that Dr. Dessler failed to mention.

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 7, 2008 @ 12:46 am

  39. Clint,
    Please don’t get upset!
    Thanks for your and Ryans earlier advice, and a while ago, I checked-it-out, and await clearance.
    Some of the things that you do not seem to have understood yet, may then become crystal clear to you!

    It’s all to do with; “the knowledge”

    BTW; What are boo-boos?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 7, 2008 @ 3:27 am

  40. Clint,
    In Australia, we have boobs = tits
    I would not want anyone to kiss my tits.
    I’m confused!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 7, 2008 @ 3:34 am

  41. clint, when global warming is mentioned i is always aboutthe past 150 years……10 years is actually 6 percent of 150 years. that is a significant chunk of time. besides, if CO2 is to blame, then we have added TONS and TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 10 years…….care to explain why the earth has cooled during that time?

    you mention millions of years as if that has ANYTHING to do with the Global Warming argument……but the truth is that it doesn’t.

    Comment by mark — May 7, 2008 @ 5:49 am

  42. boo-boos are painful spots/sores/pains. You would use this term when talking to a child.

    Comment by DJ Nicko — May 7, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

  43. I would characterize it as that, but particularly applicable to small injuries — the typical scratches and bruises a kid gets.

    Comment by BooBoo The Bear — May 7, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

  44. Your definition is better because I also feel ‘noobish’ is pretty much saying painful pains. Gah

    Comment by DJ Nicko — May 8, 2008 @ 12:55 am

  45. DJ Nicko and BooBoo The Bear,

    Thanks for that. It’s just that I could not bear the thought of Clint kissing my tits, especially if it included my hyper-sensitive nipples.

    Anyhow, apart from the fine detail, I’ve got it now: Clint was trying to insult me and Mark.

    Gee, normally, the fundamentalists usually contest and obfuscate any questioning of their faith before resorting to insult.

    Clint is a bit early in this maybe?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 8, 2008 @ 3:59 am

  46. Clint,

    You wrote above:

    “What part of 10 years versus 10 million years do you people not understand?”

    I presume you are referring to the recent 10 years?
    I guess all we can say is that they are on a T plateau, and that there are several hypothesese why that might be so. Thus the precise cause is not proven, however the data of published global T’s clearly show a plateau.

    What is more, there is nothing unusual about it if you consult the records over the last 150 years or so.

    Please consult my “Black Wallaby May 7th, 2008 at 12:46 am” inserted late up the page above, and you will see that there was a similar episode around 1940.

    Please advise Clint:
    What part of the 10 years around 1940, versus 10 million years do you Clint not understand?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 8, 2008 @ 4:17 am

  47. I see that my attempted indirect link in my post above: “by Black Wallaby May 7th, 2008 at 12:43 am”
    failed.
    I either misunderstood or screwed-up on the html lingo:
    description

    Consequently, I will re-post it with a direct link but that implies a spam delay of 24Hrs.

    A pity really, because it may have helped Clint understand the relative significance of past low-signal cycles in climate with what appears to be happening right now!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 8, 2008 @ 4:43 am

  48. Well bugger me,
    I copy-pasted Clint’s html instructions, and it comes up as ‘description’ in blue coloured font!

    Actually, I quite like the full URL because it gives more information where it comes from right before the veritable eyeballs!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 8, 2008 @ 4:49 am

  49. Hands up anyone who has studied the *2003* paper of: L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin! (K & L)

    No? Well what they did was show very logically, back in *2003* that there is an ~60-year low signal in climate fluctuation, with another peak commencing at about that time. (prior to publishing in *2003*) Guess what? In 2008, the evidence for that is looking much stronger. It is good news if it continues to be true for the next 60 years!;

    1) People worried about New York swamped by tidal waves will have a reprieve

    2) Scientists worried about the potential return of a “Little Ice Age”, eg…… Re: solar cycle 24 has gone all funny, and the PDO etc, may perhaps gain comfort from (K & L)

    Anyway, see my updated mark-up of Fig 5 in (K & L)’s paper.

    Let’s hope they are right, because it appears to be very good news!

    We can survive a bit of cold over the next 30 years or so!

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2473007422_0f83ed191d_o….

    Source is identified thereon

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 8, 2008 @ 5:04 am

  50. this thread has gotten fairly hilarious. it was set up to mock people questioning global warming and all the news since then has said we are going into a cooling period……

    wallaby, your last link is useless. it goes to a defunct site.

    Comment by mark — May 10, 2008 @ 9:06 am

  51. Hi Mark, it seems that Flickr links dont work reliably on some sites, however I have it on another site at this URL comment # 100:

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49#comment100

    And as of this moment it opens OK from there. Give it a try, and meanwhile I’ll see what else I can do

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 11, 2008 @ 1:05 am

  52. Hi Mark, I tried to fix the link problem but in the process, because there was a new link involved, it has gone into the spam abyss.

    I like Ryan, he’s a bit gung-ho and with an interesting turn of humour, but doesn’t block anything, (to my experience), like they do at some AGW sites.

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 11, 2008 @ 1:18 am

  53. Hi Mark,
    This FIX should work:
    Grab the bad link above and paste it into your browser addrees location. Delete everything after the_o, and replace it with .jpg

    making it _o.jpg

    GO

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 11, 2008 @ 1:45 am

  54. FlickR links work. If you hotlink a flickr image, terms of service say you must link the image to the flickr page of that image. If you don’t — they might not make the image available to you.

    For MY flickr, I have never had any link in any way shape or form not work.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 11, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

  55. Black Wallaby and Mark,

    I’m catching up on comments threads tonight. I’m not really sure what to say to your links, except they aren’t very convincing. We appear to be going through a temporary cool spot, but it’s the trend that matters. If we have 10 years of cooling to make up for the last century of warming, I’ll reconsider my support for Global Warming Theory; however, a few months or even a year of cool weather isn’t enough to turn the science around on this.

    There will not be 10 years of cooling as a few researchers are suggesting, and RealClimate has even put money on this. I understand you are skeptical of Global Warming and feel an urgency to disprove it, but it’s going to take several more years of sustained cooling to do that. A momentary temperature dip isn’t going to do that. I’ve linked to the the fact that April was cold, I want to know about facts like this to better understand the issue, but it’s going to take more than this to turn a scientific consensus, established on a century of observations, around.

    I appreciate the efforts you’re going to, but a “projected annual mean” that’s still above average isn’t very convincing, neither is a few negative numbers in the most recent few rows of the NSSTC data, and most of all, not the graphs of the last century showing a slight dip in an otherwise upward climb.

    If this is the start of a cooling trend, then your efforts are a good start for understanding it, but I think it would be a good idea to figure out what climate benchmarks we should be looking for to justify claiming a trend. How many years of data? How much of a temperature drop?

    Just my thoughts. : )

    ry

    Comment by ideonexus — May 13, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

  56. seems to me we now have 10 years of data that shows that the temperatures MAY be reversing. it is not a done deal…..but neither is the suggestion that CO2 is the cause.

    Comment by mark — May 15, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

  57. ryan, i would also point out that 10 years ago none of your trusted sources today indicated that 1998 would be the hottest year on record 10 years later……..they aren’t good at predicting 10 years in the future, why should we trust them for predicting 100 years in the future?

    Comment by mark — May 15, 2008 @ 10:44 pm

  58. so now all 4 indices have reported……3 out of 4 had this april as the coolest april since 1997. the only one that didn’t? Hansen’s……but even that showed signficiant cooling.

    i am starting to believe the connection with the sun. solar cycle 24 has yet to get going and in the mean time, temperatures keep dropping. it will be interesting to see how may shapes up.

    Comment by mark — May 17, 2008 @ 8:59 am

  59. Mark,

    None of my trusted sources make any predictions about short term weather, only long-term trends. As Mark Twain said, “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.” 1998 was a strong hot spike, but all the years after have been above average. Averages are what’s important. Not 1998 and not the month of April, averages.

    ry

    Comment by ideonexus — May 17, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

  60. obviously ry and i agree, but the point is that we just had the coldest april in 11 years and for the year we are on track to be colder than 1990 (january through april). i just am having trouble seeing how the standard theory of Global Warming has predicted this, all the while we have been cranking CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing pace. in fact, it is estimated that we have added between 4 and 5% to our CO2 levels in the past 10 years yet we have begun to level off, if not cool……….

    Comment by mark — May 17, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

  61. The Hadley temperature record does indeed show that the global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly trend has been flat to slight cooling.

    If you start the record for the most recent decade with 1998, you get an essentially flat trend (less than 0.01C cooling over the 10-year period).

    If you start the record for the “21st century so far” with 2001, you get a slight linear cooling trend of –0.11/decade (around 0.08C cooling over the 7-year period).

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2500586856_7251054aa7_o.jpg

    What will happen from here on out, is anyone’s guess.

    The WMO expects the rest of 2008 to continue to be cooler than average, and IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri has said he would look into what is causing this “plateau”, adding that he hopes people will not think global warming is “hogwash” as a result

    Max

    Comment by manacker — May 17, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

  62. “1998 was a strong hot spike, but all the years after have been above average. Averages are what’s important. Not 1998 and not the month of April, averages.”

    Actually, averages are not what is important.

    What is important is trends.

    We are now in a flat to slight cooling trend, while the greenhouse theory tell us we should be in a warming trend, with record amounts of CO2 being emitted.

    Max

    Comment by manacker — May 17, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

  63. exactly max! we all agree (i hope) that the world has warmed in the past 150 years. the question for us is 2-fold. is it STILL warming? is the warming that has happened due to CO2?

    with it cooling……it seems that it is NOT warming, which would also suggest that we are at least far LESS of an influence than some would have us believe…

    Comment by mark — May 18, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

  64. Are you guys really incapable of understanding how a short-term trend can be in the opposite direction of the long term trend?

    I suggest you take your “knowledge of trends” and go play the stock market with that mentality. You’ll see real quick that you have no money left.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 18, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

  65. Clint,
    What don’t you understand about the ten-year period around 1940?
    It was remarkably similar to what we see now and was followed by a significant coolimg period, just as CO2 emissions were taking off

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 18, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

  66. Black Wallaby: Please make stock market purchases based on the last 1% of data in a company’s history and see how well your portfolio will fare.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 18, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

  67. clint…..the problem with you argument is that you are using false numers. our records go back to 1850, and are strengthened in the past 100 years, but even if we grant almost 160 years of records, we are still talking about an entire decade which is approximately 6% of the record….NOT 1% like you are claiming. furthermore, it has taken 150 years to rack up 1 Centigrade warming……this does not seem very radical at all, particularly in light of the fact that we seem to be leveling off and perhaps (?) cooling.

    Comment by mark — May 19, 2008 @ 4:09 am

  68. Clint,
    Now that’s an old trick; avoid answering a question by asking a question about something entirely else.

    The question was:

    What don’t you understand about the ten-year period around 1940?
    It was remarkably similar to what we see now and was followed by a significant coolimg period, just as CO2 emissions were taking off

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 19, 2008 @ 4:12 am

  69. I seem to recall various graphs posted here that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

    Comment by ClintJCL — May 19, 2008 @ 10:52 am

  70. clint, say what you want about such graphs, but the serious data is 150 years old and we do know from those other graphs that there have been times with 10X as much CO2 and with WARMER temperatures globally….so what’s your point?

    http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/COMMENTARY/673994116/

    Comment by mark — May 19, 2008 @ 11:34 am

  71. Clint,
    Now that’s an old trick; avoid answering a question by making a statement about something entirely irrelevant.

    The question was:

    What don’t you understand about the ten-year period around 1940?
    It was remarkably similar to what we see now and was followed by a significant coolimg period, just as CO2 emissions were taking off

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 19, 2008 @ 7:01 pm

  72. wallaby…i am beginning to think that clint does not want to answer your perfectly reasonable question.

    Comment by mark — May 20, 2008 @ 2:23 am

  73. wow….still nothing from clint. clint? are you there?

    Comment by mark — May 22, 2008 @ 2:16 am

  74. Hi Mark,
    Maybe Clint does not have much scientific understanding, and the question should be asked of Ryan whom does have some understanding it seems.

    It looks like Clint has put it into the “too hard basket” because I see that in the latest comments list he has made at least 3 comments elsewhere in between your last two posts

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 22, 2008 @ 3:57 am

  75. seems a reasonable conclusion. ryan? can you help us out here? how might you reasonably answer Black Wallaby’s good question?

    mark

    Comment by mark — May 22, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

  76. My response is basically that the Washington Times really isn’t a very good source of information on this. I’ve all ready torn apart two of their very shoddily-written articles. They have published some embarrassingly bad stuff on this topic. The NewRepublic, CanadaFreePress, and Steve Milloy won’t do anything to convince me either.

    What does convince me is arguments based on science published in peer-reviewed journals and analyzed by the scientific community. According that research, the world has continued to warm since the 1998 spike in temperatures:

    Waiting for Global Cooling (PDF)

    I find this sort of in-depth analysis much more compelling than an image on a flickr set or a ranting opinion-piece in a newspaper of questionable reputation.

    : )

    Comment by ideonexus — May 22, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

  77. interesting article ryan…but i would point out that you didn’t meet your own standard. that was not (as far as i could tell?) peer-reviewed. regardless, he makes some good points. so i think only time will tell…….it does seem like the trend has overall been up, but does seem to possibly be trending downward. i do agree with that article that we haven’t had enough time to determine that yet.

    i would point out to you that Nature printed a peer reviewed article that claims that we will not be warming until at LEAST 2015…..maybe later.

    Comment by mark — May 23, 2008 @ 12:46 am

  78. Ryan,
    Thank you for responding to support your pal Clint, whom seems to be dumbstruck. I would also like to compliment you on a lucid response from you on:
    May 13th, 2008 at 9:33 pm. It is extraordinarily good compared with all the crap from other AGW alarmists I’ve encountered.

    However, concerning your latest:

    Now that’s an old trick; avoid answering a question by obfuscating about the media or something entirely irrelevant.

    The question was:

    What don’t you understand about the ten-year period around 1940?
    It was remarkably similar to what we see now and was followed by a significant coolimg period, just as CO2 emissions were taking off

    The relevant data is from THE SOURCE, the Hadley global surface T record.
    Additionally, GISS monthly, which is rather sus’ also shows a plateau for the last ten years. I’m gobsmacked that you cannot see this data for what it clearly is. Perhaps you read Realclimate too much…..You know, those guys who invented the hockeystick?

    No links given here, or this may be lost in the spam abyss…..see above for Hadley data

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 23, 2008 @ 4:11 am

  79. ryan…..it is true that you jumped in on clint’s behalf, but then you really straight up avoided the question (although you made some good points nonetheless!).

    care to comment?

    Comment by mark — May 26, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

  80. Sorry. I’m really swamped right now, but to respond to the minor dip in temperatures between 1940 and 1970. This was a very minor variable in an otherwise overwhelming trend. The current best hypothesis on this is that aerosols were reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, an hypothesis further supported by jet contrail research and satellites observing pollution in the upper atmosphere.

    Hope this helps.

    Comment by ideonexus — May 27, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

  81. hmmm….well, despite what ideonexus said in his last post, this hit the newswire today:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html

    sounds a bit like fishing to me…..but perhaps it is true.

    Comment by mark — May 28, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

  82. Hi Ryan,
    If you are really swamped right now, I’ll comment around 1 June or later, partly because I’ve exceeded my May broadband allowance, and things are reeeeeeeeeeally slow and irritating at the moment.
    Shame about Clint going all shy! Such an exhuberent personality normally!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — May 29, 2008 @ 7:52 am

  83. Hi Ryan,
    Thanks for stepping-in for Clint. Such a shame that his effervescence should suddenly fade after being asked this basic question four times….a sad loss of great ebullience:

    The question:
    “What part of the 10 years around 1940, versus 10 million years do you Clint not understand? “ [Or the current past 10 years]

    To help you understand the question better, the following illustration may help:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg

    Since you do seem to have a good scientific background, your careful and prolonged study of the figure would be appreciated.

    Comment by Black Wallaby — June 1, 2008 @ 3:11 am

  84. Hi Mark,
    Now I’m back on broadband I downloaded your link describing the latest “Correction” to the Hadley T record, as advocated by Phil Jones. I don’t know if you are aware, but P Jones, and his immediate colleagues like Briffa and Osborne at UEA/Hadley/CRU, are in the same church as Mann et al, the inventors of the fraudulent hockey-stick, and the RealClimate website.

    I was gob-smacked by your link, and have posted it on an academic website run by Steve McIntyre; ClimateAudit, where I anticipate it may generate some discussion by various scientists. I will post the direct link separately, so as not to lose this post in the spam abyss.

    I’ve also responded to Ryan, but it contained a link so it will be delayed I presume.

    Comment by Black Wallaby — June 1, 2008 @ 3:37 am

  85. Mark,
    As promised, here is the link over at ClimateAudit, to the thread that introduces the latest Phil Jones “correction” to the T record. (BTW; I use the identity of Bob_FJ there rather than Black Wallaby)

    http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=286&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=300

    Comment by Black Wallaby — June 1, 2008 @ 3:49 am

  86. Hey Mark,
    I’m curious to know if you are the same as MarkW over at you know where?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — June 4, 2008 @ 4:48 am

  87. this truly is getting hilarious….new UAH data is out and May was globally VERY cold. this was the 4th coldest may on record in terms of the troposphere….which has only kept records since 1979. the temperatures continue to drop drastically.

    ryan? have anything to say about this latest data?

    black….i am mark p from austin texas.

    Comment by mark — June 5, 2008 @ 12:36 am

  88. and of course, it continues…..it was the 8th coldest may according to the RSS……once again that only is back to 1979….but doesn’t exactly strike fear of warming does it?

    Comment by mark — June 13, 2008 @ 12:00 am

  89. HELLO, HELLO!

    Clint and Ryan, we know you are still there because your finger-prints have been all over the (recent) comments list.
    Please don’t be shy.
    Come and chat, please

    Comment by Black Wallaby — June 15, 2008 @ 3:06 am

  90. interesting…i have been watching the daily temperature updates from the satellite data…and we are off about 1/3 to 1/2 a degree on average at all different levels….if this continues, we can count on at least the satellite data showing a dramatically cooler june than one year ago…

    Comment by mark — June 27, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

  91. Great Work Mark! A few more decades of such observations and you might have something! : )

    Comment by ideonexus — June 28, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

  92. decades? wow…it sounds like you have a far higher standard for me than your own worldview. so the fact that CO2 has been rising for a decade while temperatures have been dropping doesn’t cause you to question your dogma at all?

    why won’t you answer black wallaby’s question?

    Comment by mark — June 29, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

  93. I did answer. It was ignored. Just like you’ve ignored my answer to all your anecdotal evidence by continuing to present it and then asking why I won’t respond to it. Many people reading this thread are finding it amusing. So please continue. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — June 29, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

  94. interesting distortion of the events….but don’t worry, i am very familiar with this now as i have been studying this issue for the past year or so. at any rate, i am intrigued by your claim to have answered our messages…..

    by all means, point me to the message where you responded to black wallaby here:

    “Hi Ryan,
    Thanks for stepping-in for Clint. Such a shame that his effervescence should suddenly fade after being asked this basic question four times….a sad loss of great ebullience:

    The question:
    “What part of the 10 years around 1940, versus 10 million years do you Clint not understand? “ [Or the current past 10 years]

    To help you understand the question better, the following illustration may help:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg

    Since you do seem to have a good scientific background, your careful and prolonged study of the figure would be appreciated.”

    i will be eagerly awaiting evidence of my supposed obstinance or blindness or both.

    Comment by mark — June 29, 2008 @ 11:46 pm

  95. for the record……Black Wallaby posted that challenge on June 1st…..

    Comment by mark — June 30, 2008 @ 12:49 am

  96. For the record I addressed the point made in his post May 27nd. You can repost it all you want and accuse me of avoiding the question, but I’ve responded and now you’re just looking silly.

    As for “distortions of events.” You guys have accused me of relying on RealClimate, which I don’t read and have never cited. You accused me of “jumping in on Clint’s behalf” when I responded to a question put directly to me.

    Then you post links to graphs out of context. Wow, you cut and pasted a trend from 1940 to the last decade. That’s not science, that’s photoshop, and it’s exactly what I satirized in my original post. You’re making my point better than I can.

    The eight warmest years on record have been since 1998, the 14 warmest years have been since 1990. Global Cooling is nonsense and unsupported. You can cherry-pick all the facts you want to manufacture a debate, but you aren’t fooling anyone.

    I surrender the thread to you.

    Comment by ideonexus — June 30, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

  97. i guess you don’t since you aren’t letting my posts through any more.

    Comment by mark — July 2, 2008 @ 3:27 am

  98. ah…that one went through….what happened to my other one?

    Comment by mark — July 2, 2008 @ 3:27 am

  99. I swear on Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. I didn’t get anything in the spam filter. I was very much looking forward to you continuing to post to this thread over the forthcoming years.

    Comment by ideonexus — July 2, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

  100. oh good…well then you won’t mind at all if i point out that this is in fact another VERY cool month according to both UAH and to RSS. this was the coldest June since 1996. it was the 9th coldest on record (UAH) or the 13th coldest on record (RSS).

    in fact, so far, 2008 (according to both RSS and UAH) has been COLDER than 1980. 28 years have passed and TONS of CO2 has gone into the atmosphere (at LEAST 10% of the total anthropogenic CO2) and yet the temps so far are COLDER than 1980.

    this is TERRIFYING news Ideonexus….it is CLEAR evidence that the earth is warming (in spite of the fact that it is cooling)….you should post something about it for your fans.

    Comment by mark — July 3, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

  101. by the way….when i rank the years according to the satellite data it is important to note that the satellite data only goes back to 1979. that means we only have 30 years of records….of course they are very good records by their very nature….but i didn’t want to leave the false impression that i was saying 9th and 13th of 130 years or something….because i am not!

    Comment by mark — July 3, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

  102. you should update the original graph you posted…..i am sure it has changed.

    here is a great graph from watts that graphs the UAH data:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/uah_june_082.png

    Comment by mark — July 4, 2008 @ 1:04 am

  103. I was recently surprised to find that this thread is still running, and thus posted a comment!
    So did Carl Satan consume my last post of two days ago?
    Why? Did I offend someone?
    Is this some kind of censorship?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 4:51 am

  104. I am so tired of you guys repeating your censorship / unapproved comments complaints all the time. WordPress has to filter spam based on heuristics. Otherwise MY blog would have had 150,000 spam comments — something like a 100 to 1 ratio of real comments. I’m sure that is a similar situation here. Register for an account, and stay logged in. After 2 or 3 manual approvals, your future comments will be auto-approved, assuming this wordpress installation works the same as that on wordpress.com, which I suspect that it does.

    Comment by ClintJCL — July 14, 2008 @ 4:59 am

  105. But, Clint, I swear, without invoking Carl Satan, or any other bibliologist, with my utmost deepest sincerity, that I made a post here showing an image of the Sun that evaporated without any explanation.
    It pointed to near 3 o-clock on that real-time image of the sun that might have indicated an emerging sun-spot. (which very worringly, is long over-due). That would have been very GOOD NEWS, but unfotunately, in the current image, my hope for good news has departed.

    Please check-it-out daily…..PUT IT ON YOUR DESKTOP:
    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
    All the time there are no black dots, it is a deep-deep worry!
    Have you noticed that the past year has been rather cold?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 6:14 am

  106. Oh, my simple text has just been spammed?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 6:17 am

  107. Oh! a one-liner got through OK

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 6:18 am

  108. So Clint can do 8 lines of text OK, but I can’t?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 6:20 am

  109. Did you create an account, or do you routinely ignore helpful instructions? :)

    Comment by ClintJCL — July 14, 2008 @ 7:11 am

  110. Clint,
    To your question above; I think so that I am legal;
    for instance this site does not require me to log-in. It must magically remember me, every time I open here. It shows me, without invitation, my “Nome de blog” and my Email address, and thus I do not need to type-it-in to enter.
    Seems fairly automatic recognition to me!
    BTW; wherefore goest Ryan?

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 14, 2008 @ 9:34 am

  111. Black Wallaby – having a cookie (which is on YOUR computer) remembering your name is not necessarily the same as having an account (but I can’t tell you one way or another). But if you haven’t gone through a signup process here, then you prob don’t have one.

    Comment by ClintJCL — July 14, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

  112. Ideonexus wrote: “The eight warmest years on record have been since 1998 , the 14 warmest years have been since 1990. Global Cooling is nonsense and unsupported. You can cherry-pick all the facts you want to manufacture a debate, but you aren’t fooling anyone.”

    A tip for ideonexus:

    Warming means getting warmer (i.e. temperatures increasing with time). The curve shows an upward trend.

    Cooling means getting cooler (i.e. temperatures decreasing with time). The curve shows a downward trend.

    Neither concept has anything whatsover to do with “the 14 warmest years have been since 1990”.

    The current curve (since 1998, or if you prefer, since 2001) shows a flat to slight cooling trend.

    This is a fact.

    Max

    Comment by manacker — July 15, 2008 @ 12:50 am

  113. Here’s a link to a study with a new slant on the importance of AGW in the overall scheme of things.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

    It confirms what many scientists have been saying all along: “it’s the sun, stupid!”

    Comment by manacker — July 15, 2008 @ 2:17 am

  114. Clint, Thanks for your advice, and I actually had a quick look-around as to how to get registered, without success. I may have done it long ago, but can’t remember. What’s more, I know that Ryan has been totally fair in allowing my posts in the past! No complaints! He has admitted the odd system prob which was sorted out. Maybe when my post evaporated recently I hit the wrong button or something. I’ll stop now at 9 lines and see how it goes!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 16, 2008 @ 7:59 am

  115. Clint,
    There you go, 7 lines of text went through this time!
    Maybe I hit the wrong button before?
    On the other hand, could it be sitting in spam because Ryan is out of town or something?
    (I did ask: wherefore goest Ryan?)
    Unfortunately, one can think a message is sent, but it all goes blank, and one is just left wondering.

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 16, 2008 @ 8:11 am

  116. Black Wallaby – – There is something in wordpress config where if a certain number of links is used (4), it goes to spam automatically. I had a friend who even had an account I have approved get moved to the spam queue based on this, so I upped mine to 6.

    Comment by ClintJCL — July 16, 2008 @ 10:22 am

  117. Clint,
    Thanks for that, and I try to minimise the URL link-count in my posts for that reason.
    But, meanwhile, I can’t for the life of me remember what the topic under debate was!
    I remember uttering:
    Wherefore goest Ryan?
    But me hist no, and am thus stressed.
    And ’twas Mark (?) that uttered many mysterious things and strange numbers that linger my mind?
    Some vague recollection of debating the weather wanders throughout my hazed cerebral neurons!

    Perhaps I need a lingering holiday somewhere where there has been some global warming, palm trees and alluring exotic native girls and whatnot!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — July 20, 2008 @ 8:52 am

  118. more funny news from the world of global wraming as a major defender of global warming reverses his position:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

    Comment by mark — July 26, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

  119. Nice one Mark!

    Comment by Black Wallaby — August 8, 2008 @ 5:23 am

  120. new data is out for the UAH and the RSS. both show a slight uptick from the last 3 months but still show it to be cooler than last year and over all quite unspectacular at slightly above the 30 year average. all in all…..still difficult to make the case for global warming.

    by the way, the UAH shows that this july was COOLER than july of 1980.

    Comment by mark — August 10, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

  121. UAH and RSS both show that August of 2008 was cooler than August of 2007, furthermore, UAH shows it to be the coolest August of the new millenium and the coldest since 2000. UAH also shows this August to be colder than August of 2008.

    Comment by mark — September 14, 2008 @ 5:35 am

  122. even Nasa has this as the coolest August since 2000…….therefore the coolest of the new millenium.

    Comment by mark — September 14, 2008 @ 5:37 am

  123. […] doesn’t actually get warmer. Here’s a link showing global temperatures, including recent years: More Global Cooling Evidence Embarrasses the IPCC Orthodoxy | ideonexus.com There is evidence I can find people are causing the weather to have more "More extremes […]

    Pingback by My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky - Page 110 - Science Forums — January 5, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.